Limiting Alliances to Guild size - Test starting February 26th

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Eltharyon wrote:

    After extensive discussion with the community - and a very active poll in which 80% of the players voted for the removal of alliances altogether - we have decided to shake things up.


    Important: As the following is quite a drastic change with an uncertain outcome, we will conduct it as a test. This means that once it goes live, we will monitor its effects closely and actively collect your feedback. Based on that, we’ll decide on whether to keep, reverse or adapt the new system.
    Damn that sums up everything. Il really loved this.

    "Remember people that it's you people that took the decision because we all know on internet the truth is with the masses."


    But a few questions :
    1) This change is going to make again big geopolitical modification. Isn't it about time to make something about Island ? Cause if you plan to make change evey month at least do something about islands.
    2) Still no new about "make house" system ?
    3) Can't you make a bigger blackzone ? Just to be sure every new guild dans have s spot.
    4) Instead of limitation over and over again ... Are you finally going to give people motivation to play the way you want insted of restriction ?
    Melaween
  • ShogunEE wrote:



    So 1153 total votes, if this now is such an issue to everyone, how come that none of the "mega" alliances did a fucking CTA to the poll and actually made their voices heard??
    Because they said it was an unofficial poll so noone really cared except SUN who vote CTA'd it. They claim they have 350,000 monthly active... so clearly making a call based on what 925 players want from an unofficial poll logically makes sense.
  • Albion is like a bottle of fine wine that will only get better with age. This change is a great example of this.

    Should probably limit the number of people within a guild to 100 also. That way you can still have a three max guilds in an alliance.

    Maybe this will make people less concerned about flexing numbers(where 75% are looting in the backline) and more concerned about focusing on the "CORE" of guilds.
  • What we have now:

    No cap on alliances
    Small guilds leeching big alliances
    Power projection based on sheer numbers
    Guilds not affiliated to big alliances denied influence of the outlands
    Tons of stale areas due to handholding

    What we will have with this change:

    Max 300 players per alliance
    Small guilds having to actively fight for space by allying with other small guilds
    Power projection based on strategy
    More conflict overall



    What will guilds win with the change:

    More content
    Less opression based on sheer numbers
    More space to explore the new outlands

    What will they lose?

    Allied territories
    Allied Battle mounts buff
    Allied healing
    Suffer FriendlyFire

    And the economy?

    More deaths all around = more gear trashed = more market activity.
  • Doomchinchilla wrote:

    ShogunEE wrote:



    So 1153 total votes, if this now is such an issue to everyone, how come that none of the "mega" alliances did a fucking CTA to the poll and actually made their voices heard??
    Because they said it was an unofficial poll so noone really cared except SUN who vote CTA'd it. They claim they have 350,000 monthly active... so clearly making a call based on what 925 players want from an unofficial poll logically makes sense.
    You might wanna look up how polls are done, every poll ever done has been a small sample size of the current base in which they are polling.

    People keep saying this wont hurt the mega alliances, yet they seem to be spending the most time in here complaining.. Lets see what happens, they said it was a test to see if it can work and if it does then it was genius if it doesnt they go back or try something else, either way as has been said a dozen times or more from mega alliance leaders this change wont hurt them at all.
  • As many people have already stated, this will only hurt most of the smaller guilds and alliances. If anyone here thinks that the biggest and strongest zvz guilds are not already capable of working multiple fronts regardless of player color or friendly fire, then this is going to be a rude awakening.

    IMO, this is SBI giving the people what they want, and swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme just to prove a point to the community. This change will only make the strong stronger. An acceptable middle ground of 800-1200 would have been a better fix.
  • I'm not entirely sure what people expects this to change. Top guilds will continue to hand hold as they always have. Alliances will still exist, there will just be friendly fire now in fights. Guild rules will be updated "If you kill player in X Guild you will be fined X Silver". It already happens now, with smaller guilds paying bigger alliances to set up hide outs and help them defend them. Ive seen it, I've done it.

    Not to mention you are making this change in the middle of a season and after everyone has already used their island move to go where their alliance leader told them to go. Do you expect these guilds to just start in-fighting? Smaller casual guilds still have zero chance against guilds like BA. When people think of alliances they mostly just think of Arch running around in 40 man zergs ganking gatherers or chasing a dude on a t3 horse. Problem is, this game needs an Arch. Arch will take anyone and give anyone a chance. They dont require you to fill out applications, submit screens of your stats, have x amount of pve/pvp fame, require you to donate everything you gather, have mandatory content outside of resets, 50% tax rates, or read and be quizzed on an entire 100 page word document called the "frickstitution".

    Why do you think they have so many flipping people in their alliance to begin with? The most hilarious part is yeah arch had like 10k members at one point but do you know how many people actually ever showed up to fight? Probably 5-10% of that at best on a reset day. Most of the new players that are in arch are simply there because there's less people to kill them. The only real change this is bringing is instead of having a few insignificant guilds who struggle, you're going to have a lot of insignificant guilds because they cant join something more established and will still be subject to getting destroyed by friendly fire alliances. Guild turn over rate in the lesser guilds will probably sky rocket as people constantly try to "move up" in the guild hierarchy or start their own guild.

    The center of the map will still be owned by the top guilds. I give this 2 months top.
  • This isnt best for big guilds at all.

    They won't be able to easily handhold.
    They wont be able to use allied terries.
    They will now suffer from friendly fire
    They wont be able to heal or support each other
    Battle mammoth wont benefit all of them
    Huge AoEs will force them to fight separately.

    The only small guilds that are being affected are the leechers on big alliances.

    The real growing small guilds will have way more space with this.
  • This change is shooking to me. Me and my Gf playing in an "academy guild" of an big Guild right now and were only playing like 3-4 days a week. Shes is full into gathering and dont want to pvp at all, and im loving the big zvz fights. Sadly im 100% sure we wont get into the main guild. Now we have to look for another competetive Guild (Even when all our friends play in the old Guild) that actually takes full gatherers and is fine with us beeing not as active as others.

    To be honest im really disappointed in u sbi
  • I think it's cute how the mega alliance players are crying about how this will hurt the casual guilds and players. Since when did you all start letting people into your guilds that didn't have 10mil+ fame and require players to do 10+ minimum CTA's a week? Mega Alliances and the guilds competing for the top season spots aren't interested in new/casual players other than to feast on their dead bodies. That hasn't changed in the past year that i have played.

    The competitive guilds and alliances will adapt just fine...they may just have to look over their shoulder a bit more and wont be able to rally 300+ people to destroy a random hideout that is in the second stage of Construction 3 zones away from their territory. BooHoo!!!

    Mean while, the smaller guilds wont be affected that much since they were already at a disadvantage going into the black zones in small numbers. But maybe, now that territories aren't held and stripped by super alliances, gatherers will be able to slip into territories of guilds that don't have a presence at a specific game time and get some resources. Time will tell.
  • Quade wrote:

    This change is shooking to me. Me and my Gf playing in an "academy guild" of an big Guild right now and were only playing like 3-4 days a week. Shes is full into gathering and dont want to pvp at all, and im loving the big zvz fights. Sadly im 100% sure we wont get into the main guild. Now we have to look for another competetive Guild (Even when all our friends play in the old Guild) that actually takes full gatherers and is fine with us beeing not as active as others.

    To be honest im really disappointed in u sbi
    lol trying to have a social environment in the game while still having fun with the content.
  • Quade wrote:

    This change is shooking to me. Me and my Gf playing in an "academy guild" of an big Guild right now and were only playing like 3-4 days a week. Shes is full into gathering and dont want to pvp at all, and im loving the big zvz fights. Sadly im 100% sure we wont get into the main guild. Now we have to look for another competetive Guild (Even when all our friends play in the old Guild) that actually takes full gatherers and is fine with us beeing not as active as others.

    To be honest im really disappointed in u sbi

    Make your gf donate and craft stuff for the guild. All guilds need Crafters and gatherers.
  • ThePottersky wrote:

    FrozenIce wrote:

    TBH, I have been a proponent of eliminating alliances. However, this is literally the worst timing possible
    You summarize my thougts very well.
    1. BAD timing
    2. EXTREME measure


    SBI, I don't mind if you want to keep current plans, but please reconsider the timing & extent of those.
    Timing is actually perfect, something like this needs tested on a large scale as well as smaller scales, the reset provides this opportunity and a ton of potential data to process in order to see if this change makes a positive impact on the game
    If this change doesn't hurt mega alliances as they claim and only hurts small guilds then it wont make a difference for the season at all or only a slight one.
    I do not understand the outrage and anger over this, while at the same time making these wild claims that it will do nothing to but hurt small guilds, the same small guilds that are getting beat up and bullied right now.
    Maybe it doesn't help them or maybe it does but what is going on now damn sure isn't working.

    Oh also when testing something you need to start small and adjust, they can always increase the size of alliances after the initial testing if needed, but starting at a higher number would mean they would have to choose to lower it or raise it leaving too many unknowns.
    What you think to be extreme is just smart and well thought out planning to the more trained and educated person.